Global warming fallout

[#juan]

The fallout of global warming: 1,000 years

In stark terms, scientists confirm that climate change is 'unequivocal'


MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Humans have already caused so much damage to the atmosphere that the effects of global warming will last for more than 1,000 years, according to a summary of a climate-change report being prepared by the world's leading scientists.
The draft, seen by The Globe and Mail yesterday, also says evidence the world is heating up is now so strong it is “unequivocal” and predicts more frequent heat waves, droughts and rain storms, as well as more violent typhoons and hurricanes. It concludes the higher temperatures observed during the past 50 years are so dramatically different from anything in the climate record that the last half-century period was likely the hottest in at least the past 1,300 years.



http://tinyurl.com/3alrsn

 

[#juan]

Researchers at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said a further one degree celsius rise in the global temperature could be critical to the planet, and there was already a threat of extreme weather resulting from El Niño.


http://tinyurl.com/rewx6

 

[thomaska]

Here's my problem with the global warming alarmism, for every scientist that says that doomsday is nigh because of global warming, there is one that says it is a natural occurance, and for man to think he can stop global warming is as ridiculous as the notion that we are causing it.

I personally believe that ones acceptance or denial of the cause global warming has more to do with ones politics than it does with concern for the well-being of the planet or humanity.

I think it is no big coincidence that people and governments who were for the Kyoto accords are simultaneously anti-american. Why? Well, obviously because the U.S. would be the one who would suffer most under the Kyoto accords. Huge price jumps in energy prices, astronomical fines for the evil western democracy..etc..etc..all the while countries like the former U.S.S.R and China would sail through the accords, safely exempt.

Climate of Fear
[FONT=Garamond, Times]Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Times]
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
[/FONT]

 

[tamarin]

I'm currently rereading Flannery's 'The Weather Makers.' Great stuff. Climate change is a huge story. I just hope it doesn't get as scary as some foresee.

 

[I think not]

I'll tell you that whether or not Global Warming is a naturally occuring cycle or anthropogenic or a combination of both, we all need to be a bit more responsible for future generations.

 

[tamarin]

True. Emphasis on "we all."

 

[Tonington]

Here's my problem with the global warming alarmism, for every scientist that says that doomsday is nigh because of global warming, there is one that says it is a natural occurance, and for man to think he can stop global warming is as ridiculous as the notion that we are causing it.

I personally believe that ones acceptance or denial of the cause global warming has more to do with ones politics than it does with concern for the well-being of the planet or humanity.

I think it is no big coincidence that people and governments who were for the Kyoto accords are simultaneously anti-american. Why? Well, obviously because the U.S. would be the one who would suffer most under the Kyoto accords. Huge price jumps in energy prices, astronomical fines for the evil western democracy..etc..etc..all the while countries like the former U.S.S.R and China would sail through the accords, safely exempt.[FONT=Verdana, Times]
[/FONT]

When you have climate scientists affiliated with NASA Goddard, NOAA and IPCC and the multitude of other climate/atmospheric institutions making similar assertions and findings, it is more than some broad political movement.

Then when you lambast criticisms against the USA only to do likewise to nations like China and Russia, who is a signatory of the Kyoto acord, that to me seems more analogous to a political leaning.

The fix certainly is harder than the cause. A fix requires a paradigm shift while business as usual simply encourages said trend. Further, the natural negative feedbacks require much longer time periods than those which brought us to this point. The time period for thermal expansion to come back to even where it is now were we to stop our emissions all together is on the scale of thousands of years. That seems dire and indeed it is. A temperature change of 3 degrees for example just through expansion of the water, without any ice melt accounts for something like 1.8 metres of sea level rise. That may not seem like much, but it makes the idea of rebuilding dykes and levies in New Orleans seem like a waste of time, unless the engineers have asked for input from agencies like NOAA and NASA Goddard.

 

[Northboy]

The fallout of global warming: 1,000 years

In stark terms, scientists confirm that climate change is 'unequivocal'


MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Humans have already caused so much damage to the atmosphere that the effects of global warming will last for more than 1,000 years, according to a summary of a climate-change report being prepared by the world's leading scientists.
The draft, seen by The Globe and Mail yesterday, also says evidence the world is heating up is now so strong it is “unequivocal” and predicts more frequent heat waves, droughts and rain storms, as well as more violent typhoons and hurricanes. It concludes the higher temperatures observed during the past 50 years are so dramatically different from anything in the climate record that the last half-century period was likely the hottest in at least the past 1,300 years.



http://tinyurl.com/3alrsn

Good thread....

We can all see plainly that the water is rising......how many do you think listened to Noah???

 

[thomaska]

When you have climate scientists affiliated with NASA Goddard, NOAA and IPCC and the multitude of other climate/atmospheric institutions making similar assertions and findings, it is more than some broad political movement.

Then when you lambast criticisms against the USA only to do likewise to nations like China and Russia, who is a signatory of the Kyoto acord, that to me seems more analogous to a political leaning.

The fix certainly is harder than the cause. A fix requires a paradigm shift while business as usual simply encourages said trend. Further, the natural negative feedbacks require much longer time periods than those which brought us to this point. The time period for thermal expansion to come back to even where it is now were we to stop our emissions all together is on the scale of thousands of years. That seems dire and indeed it is. A temperature change of 3 degrees for example just through expansion of the water, without any ice melt accounts for something like 1.8 metres of sea level rise. That may not seem like much, but it makes the idea of rebuilding dykes and levies in New Orleans seem like a waste of time, unless the engineers have asked for input from agencies like NOAA and NASA Goddard.

Well of course Russia and China signed it. What did they have to lose? And what would they gain if the U.S. did sign it?

There is nothing, no films, articles or whatever, that says humans cause global warming that doesn't go un answered by films articles or what not that says we don't cause it.

All the scientists in the world can agree, for example, that cyanide is bad for you. If you take it, you die (except for a certain few whom it doesnt effect). If global warming (and its causes)were such a set in stone certainty, I would imagine there would not be so much discord and vehement disagreement within the scientific community.

Another thing...apparently temperatures have been rising since before the first car rolled off an assembly line, so it can't all be attributed to SUV's and the private jet that Al Gore flies around in.

One volcanic eruption such as Mt St Helens, or Pinatubo releases more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than have been created since man started walking upright. Any plans for those? Maybe huge corks?

 

[Tonington]

China didn't sign it, they're exempt as a developing nation. The policy is certainly flawed, it required consensus, from a variety of nations with different interests, that doesn't mean the science is flawed. The IPCC before it can release a report requires consensus from 150 something countries, which makes it by nature conservative. That's what happens when policy directs science, it gets watered down.

 

[Vicious]

The fix certainly is harder than the cause. A fix requires a paradigm shift while business as usual simply encourages said trend. Further, the natural negative feedbacks require much longer time periods than those which brought us to this point. The time period for thermal expansion to come back to even where it is now were we to stop our emissions all together is on the scale of thousands of years.

Am I reading this right? Tomorrow we park all the cars, stop heating our homes and then wait a thousand years and all will be back to normal?

 

[thomaska]

Am I reading this right? Tomorrow we park all the cars, stop heating our homes and then wait a thousand years and all will be back to normal?

I think its more than 1000, but (shrug) whats a few thousand years here or there.

In six billion years, Mr. Sun will engulf the planet anyways, maybe we should get to work on that problem too.

 

[MMMike]

If global warming (and its causes)were such a set in stone certainty, I would imagine there would not be so much discord and vehement disagreement within the scientific community.

Another thing...apparently temperatures have been rising since before the first car rolled off an assembly line, so it can't all be attributed to SUV's and the private jet that Al Gore flies around in.

One volcanic eruption such as Mt St Helens, or Pinatubo releases more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than have been created since man started walking upright. Any plans for those? Maybe huge corks?

There is no 'vehement disagreement' within the scientific community. 99% of scientific articles in peer-reviewed publications agree that global warming is real, and that it is caused by human activity. The disconnect is in the mainstream press, where global warming denialists (fossil fuel lobby) get equal space as the mainstream scientific community.

Temperatures (or more accurately CO2 emissions) have been rising since the birth of our industrial society more than 150 years ago.

As far as volcanic eruptions, these are natural events and have occurred throughout history. That does not explain the massive increase in CO2 emissions seen recently. The climate is a complicated system that operates in a delicate balance. There are plenty of natural sources of greenhouse gases (hell, water vapour is the most prevalent of all), but it is human caused emissions that are tipping the balance.

 

[#juan]

Well of course Russia and China signed it. What did they have to lose? And what would they gain if the U.S. did sign it?

There is nothing, no films, articles or whatever, that says humans cause global warming that doesn't go un answered by films articles or what not that says we don't cause it.

All the scientists in the world can agree, for example, that cyanide is bad for you. If you take it, you die (except for a certain few whom it doesnt effect). If global warming (and its causes)were such a set in stone certainty, I would imagine there would not be so much discord and vehement disagreement within the scientific community.

Another thing...apparently temperatures have been rising since before the first car rolled off an assembly line, so it can't all be attributed to SUV's and the private jet that Al Gore flies around in.

One volcanic eruption such as Mt St Helens, or Pinatubo releases more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than have been created since man started walking upright. Any plans for those? Maybe huge corks?

Not True

Yearly averages of global temperatures have steadily increased since the industrial revolution, mid-1700's to mid-1800's in England, addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from industrial processes and the internal combustion engine. Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.

 

[Tonington]

One volcanic eruption such as Mt St Helens, or Pinatubo releases more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than have been created since man started walking upright. Any plans for those? Maybe huge corks?

As Juan allready said volcanic eruptions are minimal in comparison to our emissions. Also, a volcanic eruption of large proportions releases tonnes and tonnes of ash and soot, which actually has a cooling effect.

 

[Vicious]

Time to send the scientists back to the drawing board to find a fix that shows some results by 2012 not 3012.

 

[Tonington]

Heres a nifty graph produced by the IPCC.

 

[thomaska]

As Juan allready said volcanic eruptions are minimal in comparison to our emissions. Also, a volcanic eruption of large proportions releases tonnes and tonnes of ash and soot, which actually has a cooling effect.

Im not talking about the everyday emissions from volcanos, I'm talking about the huge eruptions. They are about as likely to stop as Al Gore is likely to trade in his SUV's and start walking to his speech engagements.

A "cooling" effect...tread cautiously my friend, talk like that could get one excommunicated from the Green Church.

I just find all the alarmists amusing. For every place where ice is melting, its thickening somewhere else, there examples like that everywhere. But to the most devout disciples of the global warming dogma in the church of liberalism, even when a locale gets colder, it is attributed to global warming!:laughing7:

 

[mabudon]

Right, so since there's some stuff we can't control, why bother (the volcanoes thing)??
That's like saying that since someone is mentally disabled and you can't stop them from masturbating in public, having laws against such a thing is stupid

 

[Tonington]

Im not talking about the everyday emissions from volcanos, I'm talking about the huge eruptions. They are about as likely to stop as Al Gore is likely to trade in his SUV's and start walking to his speech engagements.

A "cooling" effect...tread cautiously my friend, talk like that could get one excommunicated from the Green Church.

I just find all the alarmists amusing. For every place where ice is melting, its thickening somewhere else, there examples like that everywhere. But to the most devout disciples of the global warming dogma in the church of liberalism, even when a locale gets colder, it is attributed to global warming!:laughing7:

I'm not to worried about being kicked out of any church, I'm not going to cherry pick around the facts

One of the consequences of having all this extra energy around is greater instability. You're absolutely right about the ice changing locales, but the rate of change isn't equal. Recent models which take into account this very fact show the Arctic ice free during the summer as early as 2040, 10 years before the full power of our Clean Air Act comes into effect...